Senator Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) was a guest on KGMI’s May 2, 2017, “The Morning Show,” a conservative talk radio show, hosted by Dillon Honcoop. During the show, Honcoop asked Ericksen about his job with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).From listening to Ericksen’s responses, he confirmed that he is still employed with the EPA. He said that his “temporary” appointment with the agency, is winding down, although he also told listeners that if there’s an opportunity to serve the Trump Administration in some capacity on the West Coast, he would consider that, whether it’s with the EPA, or Department of Energy, or Department of Agriculture, or Department of Interior, or whatever it would end up being.

One of the things that Senator Ericksen said in response to a question from Honcoop stood out to me. Honcoop asked, “Were you able to, um, keep them aware back in D.C. of some of the issues that we face out here in the West Coast and specifically in Washington state?”

Ericksen answered, “Well, a little bit, you know, in my capacity, I couldn’t be lobbying for just one state.”

Isn’t it Ericksen’s job as a Washington state senator to lobby for our state? Isn’t that supposedly why he spent over $2,500 in surplus campaign funds on a Washington D.C. hotel, on D.C. restaurant meals, and airfare presumably to D.C.? I listened to that remark made by Ericksen several times in transcribing his dialogue with Honcoop, and each time I heard it, it upset me. He has been allowed to be working for a federal agency in a position that, according to his January 19, 2017, EPA employment/appointment letter, necessitates “full-time hours,” yet he is working that position while working as a state senator during a legislative session, and, during the additional special legislative session that is ongoing.

That remark by Ericksen stood out to me because it seemed to reinforce what I first thought when I heard on January 23rd that he had accepted the Trump Administration’s appointment to a post with the EPA — that his duties as a current state senator would be in conflict with some of his duties as an employee with the EPA, and vice versa.

Senator Ericksen admitted in his May 2nd radio interview that he can’t lobby for “just one state,” which seems to contradict his written statement about his surplus campaign fund spending that was reported in an April 30, 2017, Seattle Times article. In his statement, Ericksen said: “All surplus fund expenditures are related to conducting my duties as an elected official.”

Was Ericksen in D.C. representing Washington State, or was he there as an EPA employee? How do we go about investigating Senator Ericksen’s EPA employment arrangement in terms of a potential conflict of interest, and in terms of his surplus campaign fund expenditures relating to his activities in Washington, D.C.?